The latest disclosure comes just 24 hours after Kirsty Young, the broadcaster, hit out at pushy parents who attempted to shape young children into “baby Einsteins” by forcing them into extra maths and language lessons.

Dr Sebastian Suggate, who led the research, said the view that children should read from five was now “contestable”.

“Because later starters at reading are still learning through play, language and interactions with adults, their long-term learning is not disadvantaged,” he said. “Instead, these activities prepare the soil well for later development of reading.

"If there aren't advantages to learning to read from the age of five, could there be disadvantages to starting teaching children to read earlier? In other words, we could be putting them off."

Dr Suggate tracked the progress of 400 children over three years. It included those from progressive Steiner schools who started at seven and others from state schools who read from the age of five.

He found no difference in their reading skills by the time they finished compulsory primary education aged 11.

Sue Palmer, an author and former head teacher, said: “The evidence is clear. Children start later in Scandinavian countries and still outperform British children later on, yet we seem obsessed with doing everything at an increasingly early age. The way things are going, we will start to have phonics lessons in maternity units if we’re not careful.”

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said: "Reading is fundamental to the rest of the curriculum and without being able to read, progress in other areas is likely to be held back.

"Putting back the age at which children start to read also risks holding all children back and widening the gaps still further without any certainty that they will be reduced later. Evidence shows that the earlier the additional support, the more successful it is likely to be and the less a child will be held back academically and socially."